CAR_Public/080402.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 2, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 65
  
                            Headlines

ACER AMERICA: Faces Fla. Suit Over Fraudulent Notebooks' Claims
APPLE INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over iMAc Concealed Inferiorities
APPLE INC: Suit Seeks Injuction Against Locked iPhones
AVIS BUDGET: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Price-Fixing Litigation
AVIS BUDGET: Faces Calif. Tourism Assessment Fee Antitrust Suit

AVIS RENT: Calif. Court Mulls Summary Judgment Motion in Suits
AVIS RENT: Continues to Face FSC Litigation in Texas & Oklahoma
BUDGET TRUCK: Settles Unlawful Business Practices Suit in Calif.
D.R. HORTON: Faces California Lawsuit Over Home Buyers Deception
DOMTAR INC: Canadian Court Yet to Approve Carbonless Sheets Deal

FARMERS INSURANCE: Court Authorizes Statewide Notice Program
FEDEX CORP: Legal Woes Mount; Lawsuits in 20 States Certified
GREAT ESCAPE: Faces Suits Over Gastrointestinal Virus Outbreak
INTERNATIONAL COFFEE: Baristas File Tip-Pooling Suit in Calif.
LIFELOCK: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Alleged Deceptive Marketing

LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Seeks Dismissal of Ariz. Securities Lawsuit
NEWPAGE HOLDING: Unit Faces Suit Over Pub. Paper Price Fixing
NYSE EQRONEXT: High Court Denies Review Petition for N.Y. Suit
NYSE EURONEXT: Faces Antitrust Suit in N.Y. Over SuperDOT System
ST. LAWRENCE CEMENT: Court Reserves Ruling in Environmental Suit

STARBUCKS COFFEE: To Appeal $100-Mln Judgment in "Jou Chau" Case
TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Kentucky Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
TJ MAXX: Offers Compensation to Settle Security Breach Lawsuit
VESTIN REALTY: Still Faces Litigation Over Vestin Fund I Merger
VESTIN REALTY: Continues to Face Suit Over Vestin Fund II Merger

ZUMIEZ INC: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in W.D. Washington
* Settlements of Securities Fraud Lawsuits Down 60% in 2007


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

JPMORGAN CHASE: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
MERRILL LYNCH: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
MICHAEL BAKER: Klafter & Olsen Files PA Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MONEYGRAM INTL: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN
MORGAN STANLEY: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.

TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit
UBS AG: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.


            Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


ACER AMERICA: Faces Fla. Suit Over Fraudulent Notebooks' Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Acer America Corporation is facing a class-action complaint
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida accusing it of cheating consumers by claiming its
notebook computers with 2 gigabytes of system memory are
upgradeable to 4 gigabytes, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs say the model numbers 3680, 5570 and 5570z
notebook computers are not upgradeable to 4 gigabytes.

This is an action asserting violation of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Business
Practices Act, the Song-Beverly Act, the California Commercial
Code and the Magnuson-Moss Act in connection with notebooks
computers designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised,
warranted and sold by Acer.

The plaintiffs bring this class action pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons in
the Untied States who purchased an Acer Notebook computer with
model number 3680, 5570, or 5570z.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the notebooks have system memory upgradeable to
         4 gigabytes;

     (b) whether Acer knew or should have known that the
         notebooks' system memory was not upgradeable to 4
         gigabytes;

     (c) whether Acer concealed from consumers and failed to
         disclose to consumers that the notebooks' system memory
         was not upgradeable to 4 gigabytes;

     (d) whether Acer misrepresented the characteristics and
         qualities of the notebooks;

     (e) whether the notebooks have not or will not perform in
         accordance with the reasonable expectations of ordinary
         consumers;

     (f) whether Acer breached express warranties;

     (g) whether Acer breached implied warranties;

     (h) whether California law applies to the claims of all
         class members;

     (i) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         compensatory damages, including, among other things:

         * the purchase price of the noteboooks;

         * compensation for all out-of-pocket monies expended
           by members of the class to upgrade system memory to
           4 gigabytes;

         * the failure of consideration in connection with
           and difference in value arising out of the
           variance between the notebooks as advertised and
           the notebooks with the true system memory that they
           contained; and

         * the diminution of resale value of the notebooks
           resulting from the fact that the system memory is
           not upgradeable to 4 gigabytes.

The plaintiffs request for the following relief:

     -- an order certifying the class proposed and appointing
        plaintiff and his counsel to represent the class;

     -- restitution and disgorgement of amounts paid by
        plaintiff and class members for the purchase of the
        notebooks, together with interest from the date of
        payment;

     -- actual damages;

     -- statutory prejudgment interest;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs of this action;

     -- legal and equitable relief under the causes of action
        stated; and

     -- such other relief as the court may deem just and
        proper.

The suit is "Jay Namon et al v. Acer America Corp., Case No. 08-
20856-CIV-KING/GARBER," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
          Parker Waichman Alonso, LLP
          27399 Riverview Center Boulevard
          Bonita Springs, FL 34134
          Phone: (239) 390-1000
          Fax: (239) 390-0055


APPLE INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over iMAc Concealed Inferiorities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. deceptively marketed its new 20-inch iMac in a way
that grossly inflated the capabilities of its monitor, which is
vastly inferior to the previous generation it replaced,
according to a class action lawsuit filed by Kabateck Brown
Kellner, LLP.

According to the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California in San Jose, Apple is deceiving
consumers by concealing that the new 20-inch iMac monitors are
inferior to the previous generation's and those of the new 24-
inch iMac. In addition, the monitors are incapable of displaying
"millions of colors," despite Apple's marketing claims.
Apple's newest iMac -- an "all-in-one" desktop computer that
combines the monitor into the same case as the CPU -- was
unveiled in August 2007.

"Apple is duping its customers into thinking they're buying 'new
and improved' when in fact they're getting stuck with 'new and
inferior,'" said Brian Kabateck, Managing Partner of Kabateck
Brown Kellner.  "Beneath Apple's 'good guy' image is a
corporation that takes advantage of its customers.  Our goal is
to help those customers who were deceived and make sure Apple
tells the truth in the future."

Apple told consumers that both the 20-inch and 24-inch iMacs
displayed "millions of colors at all resolutions."  Indeed, the
new 24-inch iMacs display 16,777,216 colors on 8-bit, in-plane
switching (IPS) screens, as did the previous generation of 20-
inch iMacs. But the new 20-inch iMac monitors do not even come
close, displaying 98% fewer colors (262,144).

While Apple describes the display of both the 24-inch and 20-
inch iMacs as though they were interchangeable, the monitors in
each are of radically different technology.  The 20-inch iMacs
feature 6-bit twisted nematic film (TN) LCD screens, the least
expensive of its type.

The 20-inch iMac's TN screens have a narrower viewing angle,
less color depth, less color accuracy and are more susceptible
to washout across the screen.

Apple's Web site tells consumers that "No matter what you like
to do on your computer -- watch movies, edit photos, play games,
even just view a screen saver -- it's going to look stunning on
an iMac."

In fact, the inferior technology of the 20-inch iMac is
particularly ill-suited to editing photographs because of the
display's limited color potential and the distorting effect of
the color simulation processes.

"Apple is squeezing more profits for itself by using cheap
screens and its customers are unwittingly paying the price," Mr.
Kabateck said.

The suit is "Chandra Sanders et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case Number:
5:2008cv01713," filed with the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California, Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull,
presiding.


APPLE INC: Suit Seeks Injuction Against Locked iPhones
------------------------------------------------------
A California resident has filed a class-action lawsuit against
Apple Inc. for bricking iPhones with its latest firmware update,
Gizmodo Australia reports.  The lawsuit seeks a permanent
injunction against Apple to prevent the company from selling
locked iPhones.

Citing the Cartwright Act, Damian Fernandez, Esq., argues that
"Apple prohibits iPhone consumers from using and purchasing a
cell phone service other than through AT&T."  

The suit also seeks unspecified damages from the bricking.

Gizmodo Australia relates that while the iPhone can be restored
to its previous 1.0.2 firmware and can even make calls again
normally, many of the people who applied the anySIM software
unlock will find themselves with a phone that cannot call for
the time being -- until the iPhone Dev Team finds a solution to
fix it.

According to Gizmodo Australia's previous investigation of the
technical and legal aspects of the bricking, the lawsuit -- if
allowed to proceed -- will be very difficult to win unless they
can prove an intent of Apple to break the iPhone maliciously.


AVIS BUDGET: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Price-Fixing Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avis Budget Group, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a class-
action complaint that was brought against it and major car
rental firms over alleged fixing of prices on rental cars at
California airports.

The suit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on Nov. 14, 2007 (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 19, 2007).

Specifically, named as defendants in the matter are:

          -- The Hertz Corp.,
          -- Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.,
          -- Avis Budget Group, Inc.,
          -- VanGuard Car Rental USA, Inc.,
          -- Rent-A-Car Co.,
          -- Fox Rent A Car, Inc.,
          -- Coast Leasing Corp.,
          -- The California and Tourism Commission, and
          -- Caroline Beteta

Named plaintiffs Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow allege this
rental car defendants have entered into a horizontal price-
fixing agreement among competitors, a per se violation of the
antitrust laws, by which they have agreed to raise, stabilize
and fix the prices which they charge consumers for the rental of
automobiles at those California airports.

The conspirators also allegedly misrepresent a 2.5% tax owed to
the co-defendant California Travel and Tourism Commission as
owed by customers, though it is owed by the businesses, the suit
says.

The plaintiffs bring this suit as a class action pursuant to
Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of civil
Procedure, on behalf of all individual or entities who purchased
rental car services from rental car defendants from a California
situs airport after Jan. 1, 2007.  They want the court to rule
on:

     (a) whether defendants formed and operated a combination or
         conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
         prices of, or allocate the market for, car rental
         services operating in conjunction with California
         airports;

     (b) whether the combination or conspiracy caused the prices
         of car rental services operating in conjunction with
         California airports to be higher than they would have
         been in the absence of defendants' conduct;

     (c) the operative time period of defendants' combination or
         conspiracy;

     (d) whether defendants' conduct caused injury to the
         business or property of plaintiffs and the members of
         the class;

     (e) the appropriate measure of damages suffered by the
         class;

     (f) whether defendants' conduct violates Section 1 of the
         Sherman Act;

     (g) whether defendants' conduct violates California's
         Unfair competition Law;

     (h) whether defendants' conduct violates California's
         Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act; and

     (i) the appropriate nature of class-wide equitable relief.

The plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

     -- an injunction halting all violations, and other
        equitable relief, including restitution and disgorgement
        of unjust enrichment;

     -- damages suffered by the plaintiffs and the class,
        trebled according to law; and

     -- attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and interest as
        permitted by law.

The company filed filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which has
not yet been decided, according to the company's Feb. 28, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Michael Shames et al. v. The Hertz Corp. Case No.
07CV 2174 H BLM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert C. Fellmeth, Esq.
          Ed Howard, Esq.
          Center for Public Interest Law
          University of San Diego School of Law
          5998 Alcala Park
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Phone: (619) 260-4806
          Fax: (619) 260-4753
          e-mail: cpil@sandiego.edu

          Donald G. Rez, Esq. (rez@shlaw.com)
          Sullivan, Hill, Lewin, Rez & Engel
          550 West "C" Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, California 62101
          Phone: (619) 233-4100
          Fax: (619) 231-4372

               - and -

          Dennis Stewart, Esq. (dstewart@hulettharper.com)
          Kirk Hulett, Esq.
          Hulett Harper Stewart LLP
          550 West "C" Street, Suite 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 338-1133
          Fax: (619) 338-1139


AVIS BUDGET: Faces Calif. Tourism Assessment Fee Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avis Budget Group, Inc., is facing a consolidated class action,
captioned "In re Tourism Assessment Fee Litigation, Case No.
2:07-cv-08118-FMC-AJW," over California's Passenger Car Rental
Industry Tourism Assessment Program, according to the company's
Feb. 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

In December 2007, two individuals filed separate but virtually
identical putative class actions against Avis Budget, 12 other
rental car companies, the CTTC and California's Secretary of
Business, Transportation and Housing.

The suits are:

       -- "Thomas J. Comiskey et al. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc.
          et al., No. CV07-08118 (C.D. Cal.); and

       -- "Isabel S. Cohen et al. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc. et
          al, No. CV07-08164 (C.D. Cal.)."

These suits challenge the tourism commission assessment fees
imposed on certain renters in California as of Jan. 1, 2007.

Both suits allege that California's tourism assessment program
with respect to the rental car industry:

       -- infringes on renters' speech and associational rights
          in violation of both the U.S. and California
          Constitutions,

       -- violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution,
        
       -- violates 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 insofar as the
          assessment program violates the federal Constitution's        
          Commerce Clause and First and Fourteenth Amendments,
          and

       -- violates the Motor Vehicle Revenues section of the
          California Constitution.

Both complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, a refund
of all California tourism commission assessment fees collected
by the rental car defendants, attorneys' fees and costs, and
unspecified damages.

On Feb. 5, 2008, the district court consolidated the Comiskey
and Cohen suits, and defendants' responses have been postponed
until after the plaintiffs have filed a consolidated complaint.

The suit is "In re Tourism Assessment Fee Litigation, Case No.
2:07-cv-08118-FMC-AJW,"  filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge Florence-Marie Cooper
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Joseph D. Cohen, Esq. (jcohen@weisslurie.com)
          Weiss and Lurie
          551 Fifth Avenue Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10176
          Phone: 212-682-3025

               - and -

          Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
          Stull Stull and Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael F. Tubach, Esq. (mtubach@omm.com)
          O'Melveny & Myers
          275 Battery St, Ste 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3305
          Phone: 415-984-8700

               - and -

          Douglas B. Adler, Esq. (dadler@skadden.com)
          Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
          300 S. Grand Ave Suite 3400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3144
          Phone: 213-687-5000


AVIS RENT: Calif. Court Mulls Summary Judgment Motion in Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California in and for Los Angeles has yet
to rule on a motion for summary judgment filed by Avis Budget
Group, Inc., and sister company Budget Rent A Car System, Inc.,
in connection to purported class actions over rental car
charges, according to Avis Budget's Feb. 28, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On Aug. 8, 2006, "Ludwig v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.," and
"Farrell v. Budget Rent A Car System, Inc." were commenced with
the Superior Court of California in and for Los Angeles on
behalf of plaintiffs and all others similarly situated claiming
violations of California Civil Code Section 1936 and unlawful,
unfair or fraudulent business practices under California
Business and Professions Code Section 17203.

In both cases, the plaintiffs seek class certification, general
and compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and seek that Avis and
Budget, respectively, be enjoined from future conduct
constituting violations of Civil Code Section 1936.

Section 1936 of the California Civil Code establishes the
additional daily rates which a rental car company may charge for
the optional loss damage waiver product based on the
manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP) of the vehicle in
2002 with Consumer Price Index increases to the MSRP commencing
Jan. 1, 2003.  

The plaintiffs contend that the amount of the daily charge
imposed for certain classes of vehicles exceeds the amount set
forth in the statute based on the vehicle cost.  

No class certification hearing has been scheduled or heard by
the court.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the court determined that no further briefing
on any motions, including class certification motions, could
occur until after a decision is reached on the company's  motion
for summary judgment.

Avis Budget Group, Inc. -- http://www.avisbudgetgroup.com/--  
provides car and truck rentals and ancillary services to
businesses and consumers in the U.S., and internationally.  The
Company operates two of the brands in the global vehicle rental
industry through Avis and Budget.  Avis is a rental car supplier
to the premium commercial and leisure segments of the travel
industry and Budget is a rental car supplier to the price-
conscious segments of the industry.  The Company operates in
three business segments: Domestic Car Rental, consisting of its
Avis and Budget U.S. car rental operations; International Car
Rental, consisting of its international Avis and Budget car
rental operations, and truck rental, consisting of its Budget
truck rental operations.  


AVIS RENT: Continues to Face FSC Litigation in Texas & Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. continues to face two purported
class actions in Texas and Oklahoma over its use and collection
of the fuel service charge, according to the company's Feb. 28,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Starting 2004, the company was named as a defendant in two
putative class actions, namely:

        -- "Esquivel v. Avis," commenced Jan. 24, 2004 with the
           214th Judicial District of Nueces County, Texas; and

        -- "Stafford v. Avis," commenced Feb. 16, 2005 with the
           District Court in and for Creek County, State of
           Oklahoma.

Each case alleges that the company's use and collection of FSC,
pursuant to its rental agreements, constitutes an illegal
penalty and is therefore a breach of the rental agreements
between the company and the putative class members and is
unconscionable under the relevant state Uniform Commercial Code.

The cases assert other causes of action such as fraudulent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and unfair trade practice
under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act.

The putative class in "Esquivel" comprises all Texas residents
who were charged an FSC by Avis or its licensee in Texas after
Feb. 6, 2000; and in "Stafford," the class comprises all persons
who were charged an FSC by Avis, or alternatively, all Oklahoma
residents who were charged an FSC by Avis.

In each case, the plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, with the return of all FSC paid or the
difference between the FSC and the Company's actual costs,
disgorgement of unearned profits, attorneys’ fees and costs.

In the Esquivel matter, a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for
class certification was adjourned and has not been rescheduled.

No class certification hearing has been scheduled in the
Stafford case, where discovery is ongoing.

Avis Budget Group, Inc. -- http://www.avisbudgetgroup.com/--  
provides car and truck rentals and ancillary services to
businesses and consumers in the U.S., and internationally.  The
Company operates two of the brands in the global vehicle rental
industry through Avis and Budget.  Avis is a rental car supplier
to the premium commercial and leisure segments of the travel
industry and Budget is a rental car supplier to the price-
conscious segments of the industry.  The Company operates in
three business segments: Domestic Car Rental, consisting of its
Avis and Budget U.S. car rental operations; International Car
Rental, consisting of its international Avis and Budget car
rental operations, and truck rental, consisting of its Budget
truck rental operations.  


BUDGET TRUCK: Settles Unlawful Business Practices Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Truck Rental, LLC, a unit of Avis Budget Group, Inc.,
reached a settlement in a purported class action filed with the
Superior Court of the State of California.

On Oct. 27, 2006, plaintiffs Giuseppe Demarte and Mona Self
filed a complaint against Budget Truck.  The complaint alleges
causes of action for unlawful business practices in violation of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.,
and conversion, relating to Budget Truck's refueling practices
and procedures.

The complaint is asserted as a putative class action on behalf
of "all persons who, within the four years preceding the filing
of the complaint, have entered into a truck rental agreement
with Budget Truck Rental in California that provided for a
refueling fee and who paid that fee, or have paid for fuel in
connection with that rental agreement based on the amount of
fuel measured by the rented truck's fuel gauge, or have returned
the rented truck to Budget with more fuel in the tank than at
the initiation of the rental."

On Dec. 29, 2006, Budget Truck filed an answer to plaintiffs'
complaint.  

The parties have settled this action and court approval of
settlement terms is pending, according to the company's Feb. 28,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Avis Budget Group, Inc. -- http://www.avisbudgetgroup.com/--  
provides car and truck rentals and ancillary services to
businesses and consumers in the U.S., and internationally.  The
Company operates two of the brands in the global vehicle rental
industry through Avis and Budget.  Avis is a rental car supplier
to the premium commercial and leisure segments of the travel
industry and Budget is a rental car supplier to the price-
conscious segments of the industry.  The Company operates in
three business segments: Domestic Car Rental, consisting of its
Avis and Budget U.S. car rental operations; International Car
Rental, consisting of its international Avis and Budget car
rental operations, and truck rental, consisting of its Budget
truck rental operations.


D.R. HORTON: Faces California Lawsuit Over Home Buyers Deception
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action antitrust claim filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California accuses D.R.
Horton and Western Pacific Housing of illegally forcing or
deceiving homebuyers into financing their houses through DHI
Mortgage Co., at uncompetitive prices, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Plaintiffs claim Horton "is the largest homebuilding company in
the United States, based on homes closed during the 12 months
ended Sept. 30, 2007 . . . 41,370 homes with an average closing
price of approximately $259,200."

The complaint is for violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
brought on behalf of all California residential home buyers who
purchased a home located in California from D.R. Horton, Inc. or
from one of D.R. Horton's wholly owned subsidiaries -- d/b/a
D.R. Horton America's Builder -- during the four years prior to
the filing of the complaint and through the end date of the
class period as shall be determined by the court, and who
received a mortgage loan for such purchase that was originated,
processed and brokered by DHI Mortgage Company, Ltd. L.P.

Plaintiffs allege that these buyers were all, as a result of the
uniform business practices of defendants, unfairly or
deceptively convinced to finance their purchase agreement
through Horton Mortgage.  This anti-competitive lending scheme
was devised to take advantage of the market of captive, locked-
in D.R. Horton home buyers.  In so doing, defendants have
unfairly and deceptively cheated to compete to the detriment of
the California Consumer Class and California's competing
financial lending institutions and brokers in competition with
Horton Mortgage.

Plaintiffs request relief as follows:

     -- disgorgement and restitution to plaintiffs and all
        class members;

     -- actual damages and treble damages to plaintiffs and
        all class members;

     -- attorneys' fees and the costs of suit incurred;

     -- prejudgment interest as allowed by law;

     -- equitable and injunctive relief; and

     -- such other relief as the court deems just and
        proper.

The suit is "James Wilson et al v. D.R. Horton, Inc. et al.,
Case No: 08 CV 592 BEN RBB," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Phone: (858) 551-1223
          Fax: (858) 551-1232


DOMTAR INC: Canadian Court Yet to Approve Carbonless Sheets Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two Canadian courts have yet to approve Domtar, Inc.'s proposed
settlement of two purported class actions over alleged damages
relating to a conspiracy to fix prices of carbonless sheets,
according to Domtar's March 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 30, 2007.

                       Quebec Litigation

Domtar is subject to a motion by Joachim Laferriere Electricien
Inc. filed with the Quebec Superior Court on January 9, 2006,
seeking authorization to bring a class action against Domtar and
certain others for alleged damages relating to a conspiracy to
fix prices of carbonless sheets during the period of January
through December 2000 in the Province of Quebec, Canada.

The claim seeks estimated compensatory damages in the amount of
$50 million plus estimated exemplary damages in
the amount of $1 million to $5 million.

                       Ontario Litigation

Domtar is also subject to a motion by McLay & Company Inc. filed
with the Ontario Superior Court on Jan. 11, 2006, for
authorization to bring a class action against Domtar and certain
others for alleged inflated prices of carbonless sheets paper
during the period of October 1999 through September 2000 in the
Province of Ontario, Canada.

Both class actions have been settled in principle for an
insignificant amount and are subject to court approval.  

Domtar Corp. -- http://www.domtar.com-- formerly Weyerhaeuser  
TIA, Inc., is an integrated producer of uncoated freesheet paper
and manufacturer of papergrade market pulp in North America.


FARMERS INSURANCE: Court Authorizes Statewide Notice Program
------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Comanche County, Oklahoma authorized a  
statewide notice program authorized by the District Court of
Comanche County, Oklahoma in order to issue notices to those who
had homeowner's insurance issued by Farmers Insurance Company,
Inc. and Farmers Insurance Exchange after June 14, 1994.

The notices are a result of the Court establishing or
"certifying," in August 2003, a class action lawsuit about
whether the Defendants improperly withheld payments for general
contractor's overhead and profit from amounts paid on claims
under homeowner's insurance policies to citizens of Oklahoma.

The lawsuit includes all citizens of Oklahoma who were or are
Farmers homeowners' policyholders who:

     (1) suffered a covered loss to their home from June 14,
         1994 to the present;

     (2) whose loss was adjusted on an actual cash value basis;

     (3) whose claim files indicated the anticipated involvement
         of three trades or more in the repair of the property
         at the time of the ACV adjustment; and

     (4) whose ACV adjustment did not include a 20% payment for
         O&P.

Generally, a claim was adjusted on an ACV basis if the initial
payment from the Defendants for the covered loss had
depreciation taken out.  Depreciation is a decrease or loss in
value that occurs because of age or wear.

The lawsuit says that the defendants intentionally underpaid the
homeowners' claims of thousands of Oklahomans by failing to
provide them a payment for O&P.  The plaintiffs' claims are
based on the contention that there is an industry standard three
trades rule which requires payment for the services of a general
contractor when three or more trades are anticipated in a home
repair.  The defendants deny they have underpaid any homeowners'
claims, or that they failed to provide homeowners insureds with
any relevant information concerning coverage.  It is the
position of the defendants that there is no industry standard
three trades rule, and that the determination of whether, and
when, O&P is reasonably likely to be incurred depends upon a
number of different factors in addition to the number of trades.

The lawsuit seeks money or benefits for the class.

The court has not decided whether the class or the defendants
are right.  The lawyers for the class will have to prove their
claims at a trial.

The suit is "Burgess et al. v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.
et al., No. CJ-2001-292," filed with the District Court of
Comanche County, Oklahoma.


FEDEX CORP: Legal Woes Mount; Lawsuits in 20 States Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
With class-action certification now granted in 20 states as well
as nationwide, lawyers for FedEx Ground/Home Delivery drivers
are preparing to file motions starting April 11 for summary
judgment they say will prove the company has illegally
misclassified as independent contractors thousands of workers
and deprived them collectively of hundreds of millions of
dollars in lost wages, benefits and expenses, according to
attorney Lynn Rossman Faris, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs.

Ms. Faris, who brought the first of the spate of
misclassification-related lawsuits in 1999 on behalf of
California drivers, said last week's overwhelmingly favorable
class-certification ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Robert
L. Miller is significant to every one of the 25,000 class
members in every state and throughout the United States.
Tennessee, corporate headquarters of FedEx, and Pennsylvania,
home to FedEx Ground/Home Delivery, are among the states in
which Judge Miller granted class certification.

"This is a clear-cut win for the drivers. You cannot overlook in
the court's 165-page opinion the fact that the Court certified
every one of the plaintiff's claims, including claims for fraud,
wage-and-hour violations, overtime, and our claim to rescind the
illegal and bogus independent contractor agreement with the
drivers," said Ms. Faris.

She said the FedEx reaction to this latest legal setback once
again demonstrates how the company shamelessly continues to try
to mitigate and misrepresent the litigation and the objectives
of the thousands of drivers who have been victimized in the name
of corporate profits.

"Even in the small number of states where class-certification
has not been granted, our drivers are covered under the
nationwide class claims that, among other arguments, assert
their illegal classification as contractors and right to be
compensated for benefits they would have received as employees."

Ms. Faris also noted that in the weeks ahead FedEx will be
appearing before the Internal Revenue Service which last year
ruled that the company owes the government nearly $320 million
in back taxes for 2002 related to its misclassification
practices.  The agency at the time also announced it is
investigating other years for possible violations.

FedEx Corp. provides a portfolio of transportation, e-commerce
and business services through companies that compete
collectively, operate independently and manage collaboratively,
under the respected FedEx brand.  The Company is based in
Memphis, Tenn.


GREAT ESCAPE: Faces Suits Over Gastrointestinal Virus Outbreak
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fox23 News.com earlier said that four families have filed a
lawsuit against the Great Escape Lodge and Indoor Waterpark in
Queensbury after their children got sick.

According to the report, close to 400 people claimed that they
got sick after visiting the Great Escape Lodge earlier this
month.  All of them have complained about gastrointestinal
problems that state health officials believe was caused by
norovirus.

The four families' lawyer, John Aretakis, Esq., is not trying to
shut down the park or looking for money, but is calling for
change, Fox23 stated.

Now, another class action lawsuit has been filed in connection
with the gastrointestinal virus outbreak at Great Escape Lodge,
Capital News 9 reports.

The latest lawsuit was filed by the law firm Dreyer Boyajian on
behalf of three people from Rensselaer County.  The suit alleges
that management knew about the norovirus outbreak at the water
park but did not warn anyone or do anything to prevent it from
spreading.


INTERNATIONAL COFFEE: Baristas File Tip-Pooling Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Coffee and Tea, LLC, which owns Coffee Bean & Tea
Leaf, is facing a class-action complaint filed with the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego
claiming that managers illegally take a cut of tips for
baristas, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
Section 382, on behalf of all non-supervisory employees
(baristas) employed by, or formerly employed by International
Coffee & Tea Leaf.

Named plaintiff Krystal A. Jones brings this action pursuant to
Labor Code Sections 203, 351, 1199, and the California Code of
Regulations, seeking tip reimbursements, waiting time penalties,
injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs.

The suit is "Krystal A. Jones et al. v. International Coffee &
Tea, LLC, Case No. 37-2008-00060711-CU-OE-CT," filed with the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Steven A. Blum, Esq.
          Blum Collins LLP
          The Aon Center
          707 Wilshire Blvd., suite 4880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 572-0400
          Fax: (213) 572-0401


LIFELOCK: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Alleged Deceptive Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on March 28, 2008, against
LifeLock, Inc., and its CEO Richard "Todd" Davis by Dr. Warren
Pasternack and his wife, Susan, on behalf of themselves as well
as all other New Jersey LifeLock subscribers.

The Pasternacks allege that LifeLock misled them about the
limited level of identity protection the company provides, and
failed to warn them about the potential adverse impact those
services could have on their credit profiles.

The plaintiffs, who reside in Middlesex County, filed the suit
with the New Jersey Superior Court in New Brunswick, claiming
that they were the victims of Consumer Fraud by virtue of
LifeLock's deceptive advertisements.

The suit seeks to recover the money subscribers have paid to
LifeLock and prohibit the company from continuing to promote its
services through its marketing campaign.

LifeLock, which is headquartered in Tempe, Ariz., charges
subscribers $10 per month for the services it provides as "the
industry leader in the rapidly growing field of Identity Theft
Protection."  In fact, in its ubiquitous marketing campaign,
Davis broadcasts his own social security number on television
and radio stations across the country as testimony to his
confidence in the services LifeLock claims to provide.

According to the complaint, however, LifeLock's popular
advertisements lull its subscribers into a false sense of
security by misrepresenting the level the protection its
services provide.  To illustrate this point, the Complaint
states that as a result of LifeLock's popular advertisements,
CEO Davis's identity "was stolen while he was a customer and is,
upon information and belief, presently being misappropriated by
at least twenty identity thieves."

David Paris of Marks & Klein, LLP, Red Bank, N.J., the attorney
for the Pasternacks and the proposed class, maintains that
LifeLock dramatically overstates the level of protection
provided by its primary service -- the placement and constant
renewal of fraud alerts on its subscribers' credit profiles.

"While fraud alerts may be effective in limited instances, they
certainly cannot provide the comprehensive identity protection
that LifeLock deceptively advertises," said Mr. Paris.  "For
instance, fraud alerts cannot stop the use of existing account
numbers, and contrary to LifeLock's advertisements, lenders are
certainly not required to contact the subscriber before
extending credit to a potential identity thief."

According to the Complaint, LifeLock also misleads subscribers
by advertising its $1 million service guarantee.  "Potential
LifeLock subscribers are enticed by the 'safety net' of what
appears to be a one-million dollar insurance policy against any
losses sustained as a result of identity theft," said Mr. Paris.

"In actuality, once you get beyond the limitations and
disclaimers, you find that the guarantee is limited to fixing
failures in LifeLock's services and paying third-parties to
attempt to restore subscriber losses."

Mr. Paris added that Marks & Klein plans to file similar actions
in New York, Florida, and California for violations of those
states' Consumer Protection Laws.

LifeLock, which was founded in 2005, presently has approximately
900,000 subscribers across the United States.

For more information, contact:

          Marks & Klein, LLP
          3 Riverside Avenue
     55 Wall Street
          Red Bank, New Jersey
          Phone: (732) 747-7100
          Fax: (732) 219-0625
          e-mail: info@marksklein.co
          Web site: http://www.markslaw.net


LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Seeks Dismissal of Ariz. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Limelight Networks, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated class action in Arizona, captioned, "Mustafa v.
Limelight Networks, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-02238-SRB."

In August 2007, the company, certain of its officers and current
and former directors, and the firms that served as the lead
underwriters in the company's initial public offering were named
as defendants in several purported class action lawsuits filed
with the U.S. District Courts for the District of Arizona and
the Southern District of New York.  

All of the New York cases were transferred to Arizona and
consolidated into a single action.  

The plaintiffs' consolidated complaint asserts causes of action
under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, on behalf of a purported class of individuals who
purchased the company's common stock in its initial public
offering and pursuant to its Prospectus.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company
omitted and misstated certain facts concerning the seasonality
of its business and the loss of revenue related to certain
customers.

On March 17, 2008, the Company and the individual defendants
moved to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims, according to the
company's March 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Mustafa v. Limelight Networks, Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-02238-SRB," filed with the U.S. District Courts for
the District of Arizona, Judge Susan R. Bolton presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. (rljacobs@pipeline.com)
          Paskowitz Law Firm PC
          60 E 42nd St.,
          46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 212-867-1156
          Fax: 212-504-8343

Representing the defendants is:

          Maureen Beyers, Esq. (mbeyers@omlaw.com)
          Osborn Maledon PA
          2929 N. Central Ave.
          Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794
          Phone: 602-640-9305
          Fax: 602-664-2053


NEWPAGE HOLDING: Unit Faces Suit Over Pub. Paper Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-trial proceedings have begun in a consolidated federal case
that names an acquisition of NewPage Holding Corp. as a
defendant.

A number of plaintiffs have filed purported class actions on
behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of publication paper in
various U.S. federal and state courts.  These class actions
allege that certain manufacturers of publication paper --
including Stora Enso North America, Inc., which was acquired by
the company and is now known as NewPage Consolidated Papers,
Inc. -- participated in a price-fixing conspiracy from 1993 to
present.

The cases filed in federal court assert a violation of the
federal antitrust laws, while the cases filed in state court
allege violations of state antitrust and consumer protection
statutes.

These lawsuits seek treble damages, injunctive relief and other
costs associated with the litigation.

The federal cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in
December 2004 and all of the state court cases except one were
removed to federal court and consolidated in the U.S. Federal
Court for the District of Connecticut.  

Pre-trial proceedings have begun in the consolidated federal
case, according to the company's March 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

NewPage Holding Corp. -- http://www.newpagecorp.com/-- is a  
coated paper manufacturer in North America. The Company operates
four integrated pulp and paper mills in Kentucky, Maine,
Maryland and Michigan, which together with its distribution
centers, are located near end-use markets, such as New York,
Chicago and Atlanta. NewPage Holding's mills have a total annual
production capacity of approximately 2.2 million short tons of
coated paper and approximately 200,000 short tons of market
pulp. The Company operates in two segments: the Coated Paper
System, which is engaged in the manufacturing, marketing and
distribution of coated papers primarily used for commercial
printing, magazines, catalogs, textbooks, and labels, and the
Carbonless Paper System, which is engaged in the manufacturing,
marketing and distribution of carbonless and technical papers
primarily for business forms.


NYSE EQRONEXT: High Court Denies Review Petition for N.Y. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a plaintiff's petition that seeks
for a review of a decision made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit in the matter, "In Re: NYSE Specialists
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-08264-RWS," which names
as a defendant, NYSE Euronext, formerly known as NYSE Group,
Inc.

The appeal is related to the appellate court's judgment that
favored defendants in the consolidated class action.

In December 2003, the California Public Employees' Retirement
System filed a purported class action complaint with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
NYSE Group, Inc., NYSE specialist firms, and others, alleging
various violations of the Exchange Act and breach of fiduciary
duty, on behalf of a purported class of persons who bought or
sold unspecified NYSE-listed stocks between 1998 and 2003.

The court consolidated the CalPERS' suit with three other
purported class actions and a non-class action into the action
now entitled, "In re NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation" and
appointed CalPERS and Empire Programs, Inc. co-lead plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on Sept. 16, 2004,
asserting claims for alleged violations of Sections 6(b), 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleging that, with the
NYSE's knowledge and active  participation, the specialist firms
engaged in manipulative, self-dealing and deceptive conduct,
including inter-positioning, front-running and "freezing" the
specialist's book and falsifying trading records to conceal
their misconduct.

The plaintiffs also claim that the NYSE constrained its
regulatory activities in order to receive substantial fees from
the specialist firms based on their profits and that defendants'
conduct "caused investors to purchase or sell shares on the NYSE
at distorted and manipulated prices, enriching defendants and
damaging plaintiffs and the Class."

The consolidated complaint also alleges that certain generalized
NYSE statements concerning the operation of its market were
rendered false and misleading by the NYSE's non-disclosure of
its alleged failure to properly regulate specialists, and that
the NYSE was motivated to participate in or permit the
specialist firms' alleged improper trading in order to maintain
or enhance its fee revenues and the compensation of its
executives, including its former chairman and chief executive
officer Richard A. Grasso.  It seeks unspecified compensatory
damages against defendants, jointly and severally.

On Nov. 16, 2004, the specialist firms and the NYSE filed
motions to dismiss the complaint.  The court subsequently issued
an order granting the NYSE's motion and dismissing all of the
claims against it with prejudice.  The court also granted in
part and denied in part the motions to dismiss of the specialist
defendants.

On Feb. 17, 2006, the court entered a final judgment in favor of
the NYSE.  The plaintiffs appealed the judgment to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, who, in September 2007,
issued an opinion affirming in part, and vacating and remanding
in part, the district court's earlier decision.  The Second
Circuit upheld the district court's ruling as to the NYSE's
self-regulatory immunity, but vacated the district court's
holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their
claims that the NYSE made false and misleading statements.

The appeals court remanded the matter to the district court for
consideration of other grounds for dismissal that the NYSE had
asserted in its motion to dismiss, including the plaintiffs'
failure to allege reliance or loss causation.

On Jan. 16, 2008, plaintiff CalPERS filed a Petition for Writ of
Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the
portion of the Second Circuit’s decision relating to the NYSE's
self-regulatory immunity.  

On February 19, 2008, the NYSE filed a brief in opposition to
the petition, asserting that further review of the Second
Circuit's decision is unwarranted.

The Supreme Court denied the Petition on March 24, 2008,
according to NYSE Euronext's March 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:03-cv-08264-RWS," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Robert W. Sweet
presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173

              - and -

         Robert Craig Finkel, Esq. (rfinkel@wolfpopper.com)
         Wolf Popper, LLP
         845 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 759-4600

Representing the defendants are:

         E. Michael Bradley, Esq. (embradley@jonesday.com)
         John E. Lavelle, Esq.
         38 Willis Avenue
         Mineola, NY 11501
         Phone: (212) 326-3863
         Fax: (212) 755-7306

              - and -
         
         Deborah S. Burstein, Esq.
         King & Spalding, LLP
         1185 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: (212) 556-2347
         Fax: (212) 556-2222


NYSE EURONEXT: Faces Antitrust Suit in N.Y. Over SuperDOT System
----------------------------------------------------------------
NYSE Euronext, formerly NYSE Group, Inc., is one of numerous
defendants named in a class action-complaint filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York that
alleges violations of federal antitrust laws, federal securities
laws, and common law, in connection with the placing of market
orders through NYSE's SuperDOT order routing system.

The complaint, which was served in August 2007, contains
allegations similar to those asserted in the matter, "In Re:
NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-08264-
RWS."

This suit seeks unspecified compensatory damages, subject to
trebling under the antitrust laws, according to NYSE Euronext's
March 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

NYSE Euronext -- http://www.nyse.com-- formerly NYSE Group,  
Inc. is a holding company created by the combination of NYSE
Group, Inc. and Euronext N.V. (Euronext).  NYSE Euronext
operates a liquid exchange group offering a range of financial
products and services. It is engaged in trading in cash
equities, exchange traded funds, and other structured products,
and equity and interest rate derivatives, as well as the
creation and global distribution of market information related
to trading in these products.  The Company also operates a
globally distributed connectivity network, and provides
commercial trading and information technology solutions for
customers and other exchanges.  In the U.S., through NYSE Group,
the Company operates the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (NYSE)
and NYSE Arca, Inc., and in Europe, it operates five European-
based exchanges that comprise Euronext: the Paris, Amsterdam,
Brussels and Lisbon stock exchanges, as well as the Liffe
derivatives markets.


ST. LAWRENCE CEMENT: Court Reserves Ruling in Environmental Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Canada's highest court has reserved judgment in a case involving
St. Lawrence Cement that environmental groups warn could limit
the ability to launch environmental class-action lawsuits, CBC
News reports.

According to CBC News, the lawsuit was brought against the
cement company by a group of residents living near the company's
factory in Beauport, Quebec.  The residents sought compensation
for damage caused by the factory's operation, including decades
of noise, odour, as well as dust problems between 1991 and 1997.
They also argued effects from the plant drove down their
property values.

CBC News says that the Supreme Court's ruling at a later date
could determine whether companies are responsible for nuisance
effects to neighbouring communities even if the companies comply
with environmental standards.  St. Lawrence Cement, which closed
its Beauport plant in 1997 after 42 years of operation, appealed
to the top court, arguing that it met regulatory emissions
standards.

While the Quebec Superior Court ruled that St. Lawrence Cement
was not involved in any wrongdoing, it did order the company to
pay CDN$15 million in damages.  The initial ruling applied a
section of the Quebec Civil Code, which states that neighbours
cannot be expected to suffer annoyances beyond reasonable levels
of tolerance.

The Quebec Court of Appeal reversed the decision, ruling that
nuisance claims could not be brought as class-action
proceedings.  Furthermore, it ruled that only property owners
could bring forward such nuisance claims, and not tenants or
family members of owners.

However, the appeal court did find the company at fault, saying
that it had an obligation to keep its pollution-control
equipment at optimal working order at all times during
production hours.

Two environmental groups -- Quebec Environmental Law Centre and
Friends of the Earth Canada -- had been granted intervenor
status in the case.  They argued that individual citizens should
not be hindered from filing private nuisance lawsuits,
especially when industrial emission regulations fail to provide
adequate protection for their homes.

"By limiting the availability of the class-action procedure in
environmental nuisance cases, an important environmental
protection tool for ordinary Canadians was undermined," Will
Amos, a lawyer for Ecojustice, said Wednesday in a release
before he argued the environmental groups' case before the
court.

According to CBC News, lawyers for St. Lawrence Cement were not
immediately available for comment.


STARBUCKS COFFEE: To Appeal $100-Mln Judgment in "Jou Chau" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starbucks Corp. (NASDAQ: SBUX) plans to appeal a San Diego
Superior Court ruling last week that ordered the company to
compensate California baristas for tips they shared with shift
supervisors.

On Oct. 8, 2004, a former hourly employee of the company filed
the suit, which alleges that the company violated the California
Labor Code by allowing shift supervisors to receive tips.   

More specifically, the suit alleges that since shift supervisors
direct the work of baristas, they qualify as "agents" of the
company and are therefore excluded from receiving tips under
California Labor Code Section 351, which prohibits employers and
their agents from collecting or receiving tips left by patrons
for other employees.  

It is further alleged that because the tipping practices violate
the Labor Code, they also are unfair practices under the
California Unfair Competition Law.  

In addition to recovery of an unspecified amount of tips
distributed to shift supervisors, the suit seeks penalties under
California Labor Code Section 203 for willful failure to pay
wages due.  The plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees and costs.   

On March 30, 2006, the Court issued an order certifying the case
as a class action, with the plaintiff representing a class of
all persons employed as baristas in the state of California
since Oct. 8, 2000.

In March 2007, notice of action was sent to approximately
120,000 potential members of the class.  Trial is currently set
for February 2008.

At the February 2008 trial for the class action, "Jou Chau v.
Starbucks Coffee Co.," Judge Cowett ordered Starbucks to pay its
California baristas more than $100 million US in back tips the
coffee retailer paid to shift supervisors (Class Action
Reporter, March 25, 2008).

The judge said baristas were entitled to $86 million plus
interest in back tips.  She added that Starbucks' practice was a
violation of a state law.

However, Chief executive Howard Schultz said that the ruling was
unfair and said that the media grossly mischaracterized the
company s standard practice of shift supervisors to share in
tips left for baristas.

Mr. Schultz vowed that the company would appeal the ruling and
defend itself against two similar lawsuits filed this week in
Minnesota and Massachusetts.

Starbucks said there is no money to be refunded or returned from
Starbucks.  Starbucks Corp. -- http://www.starbucks.com/--  
purchases and roasts whole bean coffees and sells them, along
with fresh, rich-brewed coffees, Italian-style espresso
beverages, cold blended beverages, various complementary food
items, coffee-related accessories and equipment, a selection of
premium teas and a line of compact discs, primarily through
Company-operated retail stores.


TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Kentucky Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
dismissed with prejudice  a putative class action lawsuit filed
against Tempur-Pedic International Inc., the leading
manufacturer, marketer and distributor of premium mattresses and
pillows worldwide.

Between Oct. 7 and Nov. 21, 2005, five complaints were filed
against the company and certain of its directors and officers
purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased
the company's stock between April 22, 2005, and Sept. 19, 2005.

These actions were consolidated and lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on Feb. 27, 2006, and asserted claims
arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The lead plaintiffs allege that certain of the company's public
disclosures regarding its financial performance between
April 22 and Sept. 19, 2005 were false and misleading.

On Dec. 7, 2006, the lead plaintiffs were permitted to file an
amended complaint.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages,
costs, fees and other relief within the court's discretion.  

In 2008, Tempur-Pedic International Inc. filed a motion seeking
for the dismissal of the consolidated securities fraud class
action filed against it (Class Action Reporter, March 17, 2008).

On March 28, 2008, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss all claims against all defendants with prejudice and
without leave to re-plead.

President and CEO H. Thomas Bryant commented, "We are very
pleased with the court's decision.  We have always maintained
this lawsuit was completely without merit."

"We are gratified that the court threw out these meritless
claims at the outset, as this suit should never have been
brought at all," said Jordan Hershman of Bingham McCutchen LLP,
who led the defense team in the case.

The suit is "Grillo, et al. v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 5:05-cv-00410-JMH," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky under Judge
Joseph M. Hood.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michelle M. Ciccarelli, Esq. (michelec@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-213-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

               - and -

          Peter E. Seidman, Esq. (pseidman@milbergweiss.com)
          Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, & Schulman, L.L.P.
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: 212-613-5625
          Fax: 212-868-1229

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael D. Blanchard, Esq.
          (michael.blanchard@bingham.com)
          Bingham McCutchen, LLP
          One State Street
          Hartford, CT 06103-3178
          Phone: 860-240-2700
          Fax: 860-240-2800

               - and -

          Barry D. Hunter, Esq. (bhunter@fbtlaw.com)
          Frost Brown Todd, LLC
          250 W. Main Street, 2700 Lexington, Financial Center
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Phone: 859-231-0000
          Fax: 859-231-0011


TJ MAXX: Offers Compensation to Settle Security Breach Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Customers affected by a credit and debit-card security breach at
TJ Maxx or Marshalls are urged to look into a class-action
settlement announced earlier this year, KOCO reports.

The report recalls that a hacker stole data from more than 47
million credit and debit cards in 2007.

To those who think the security breach compromised their
personal information, the company is offering several
compensation options.  These include vouchers, cash benefits and
free credit-monitoring and insurance.

TJ Maxx and Marshalls officials said that they will have a one-
day special event in which everything in the stores will be
offered at a 15% discount price.

Visit http://TJXsettlement.com/for more information.


VESTIN REALTY: Still Faces Litigation Over Vestin Fund I Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc. (VRM I) and Vestin Mortgage, Inc.
remain defendants in a breach of contract lawsuit filed with the
San Diego Superior Court by certain plaintiffs who allege, among
other things, that they were wrongfully denied appraisal rights
in connection with the merger of Vestin Fund I into VRM I.

The suit is being brought as a purported class action on behalf
of all members of Vestin Fund I who did not vote in favor of the
merger.

Vestin Fund III LLC reported no development in the matter in its
March 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Las Vegas, Nevada-based Vestin Realty Mortgage I, Inc. --
http://www.vestinrealtymortgage1.com/-- formerly Vestin Fund I,   
LLC, is a real estate investment trust.  The Company primarily
invests in loans secured by first and second trust deeds on real
property.  The loans categories include raw and unimproved land,
acquisition and development, construction, commercial and
residential.  The Company had loans in various states, such as
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Texas, Washington and Wisconsin.  The Company's manager is
Vestin Mortgage, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Vestin Group, Inc.


VESTIN REALTY: Continues to Face Suit Over Vestin Fund II Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc. (VRM II) and Vestin Mortgage,
Inc., remain defendants in a breach of contract suit filed with
the San Diego Superior Court by certain plaintiffs who allege,
among other things, that they were wrongfully denied appraisal
rights in connection with the merger of Vestin Fund II into VRM
II.

The suit is being brought as a purported class action on behalf
of all members of Vestin Fund II who did not vote in favor of
the merger.

Vestin Fund III LLC reported no development in the matter in its
March 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Las Vegas, Nevada-based Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc. --
http://www.vestinrealtymortgage2.com-- operates as a real   
estate investment trust.  It was organized for the sole purpose
of effecting a merger with Vestin Fund II, LLC.  Fund II is
engaged in investing in real estate loans.  On March 31, 2006,
Fund II merged into VRM II.   It invests in loans secured by
real estate through deeds of trust or mortgages.


ZUMIEZ INC: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zumiez, Inc., is facing two purported securities fraud class
actions that were filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, according to the company's
March 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 2, 2008.

On Dec. 10, 2007, a putative class-action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

A substantially similar complaint was filed with the same court
on Dec. 14, 2007.  

These cases, which were subsequently consolidated, purport to be
brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's
stock during the period March 14, 2007, to Nov. 7, 2007.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws during this period of time by, among other
things, making misrepresentations about the Company's projected
financial results in order to artificially inflate the Company's
stock price.

They are seeking compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
interest, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.  They have
until May 5, 2008 to file a consolidated amended complaint.

Zumiez, Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is a mall-based  
specialty retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear,
equipment and accessories operating under the Zumiez brand name.


* Settlements of Securities Fraud Lawsuits Down 60% in 2007
-----------------------------------------------------------
A report released by Cornerstone Research finds that the number
of securities class action cases settled last year rose 21%,
from 92 in 2006 to 111 in 2007.

The total value of these settlements, however, plummeted 60%
from the all-time high of $17.2 billion reported in 2006 to $7
billion in 2007.  More than 70% of this drop was due to the
largest settlement in history, the now $7.2 billion Enron case
settlement, the majority of which was approved in 2006.

Aggregate settlements in 2007 are dramatically influenced by the
$3.2 billion Tyco International settlement, which accounts for
almost 45% of the total value of settlements approved in 2007,
and is the third largest case settlement in history behind Enron
and WorldCom ($6.2 billion).

Tyco was the only settlement approved in 2007 to exceed $1
billion (compared with four in 2006, excluding Enron) and is
only the seventh settlement in history above $1 billion.

Overall, the number of settlements in excess of $100 million
declined from fourteen in 2006 to only nine in 2007. In sharp
contrast to the decrease in settlements in excess of $100
million, middle range settlements--those of $10-20 million--
increased in 2007.

In 2006 such settlements accounted for just over 10% of the
total; in 2007 they accounted for nearly 25%.  In addition, in
2007 settlements for less than $5 million declined to about 35%
of the total.  As a result, the median settlement spiked to $9
million--the highest amount to date.  (The median represents the
point at which half the data points are greater and half are
smaller; the midpoint.)

"For the past several years a relatively small number of
settlements in excess of $100 million have been the focus of
attention in analyses of securities case settlements, even
though more than half of securities cases continued to settle
for less than $10 million.  What will be interesting going
forward is to see whether the upward shift emerging from the
2007 data for more typical cases persists into future years,"
said Dr. Laura Simmons, a senior advisor to Cornerstone Research
and an author of the report.

Estimated damages are by far the most important determinant of
settlement amounts.  For purposes of the report, "estimated
damages" are based on a highly simplified model historically
used by plaintiffs to estimate the amount of shares damaged and
the amount of alleged stock price inflation.  Following the
unusually high average estimated damages for settled cases in
2006, 2007 saw a return to the 2003-05 average.  While 2006 had
eighteen settlements with estimated damages in excess of $5
billion, 2007 had just ten.  In 2007 only 24% of settlements
(twenty-seven cases) involved estimated damages of $1 billion or
more--the lowest percentage since 2003.

"It seems clear that the aggregate dollar value of settlements
over the next two or three years is likely to decline
significantly because the inventory of large cases in the
pipeline just isn't there.  The interesting open question is
whether the subprime crisis will cause an uptick in securities
fraud settlement activity that might, given settlement cycles in
the litigation industry, only become apparent three to five
years from now," said Stanford Law School Professor Joseph
Grundfest, director of the Securities Class Action Clearinghouse
(sponsored in cooperation with Cornerstone Research), co-
director of the Rock Center on Corporate Governance, and former
commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Institutional investor involvement continued to increase, with
almost 60% of cases settled in 2007 including institutions as
lead plaintiffs.  Typically, cases involving institutional
investors as lead plaintiffs, particularly public pension plans,
are associated with significantly higher settlement amounts,
even controlling for other factors that affect settlement
amounts.

As in 2006, accounting issues continued to be included in the
allegations of more than 55% of all settled cases.  But for the
second year in a row, the percentage of cases involving
allegations of financial statement restatements declined,
representing just 30% of settlements in 2007.

The report also notes the waning dominance, in terms of the
number of cases settled, of two prominent plaintiff class action
law firms recently involved in conspiracy charges -- Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (now known as Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins) and Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman (now known as Milberg).  Until 2007 the two firms had
long served as lead or co-lead plaintiff counsel in more than
half of securities class action settlements, but in 2007 their
combined share slipped to 46%.

Finally, the number of settled cases involving companion
derivative actions has been increasing in recent years.  More
than 55% of cases settled in 2007 were accompanied by the filing
of a derivative action, compared with 45 percent in 2006 and 35%
in 2005.  While the settlement of a derivative action does not
necessarily result in a cash payment, settlements for class
actions accompanied by derivative cases are significantly higher
than for cases not involving them.

Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- provides  
financial and economic analysis in litigation and regulatory
proceedings, with a focus on securities, antitrust, intellectual
property, financial institutions, energy, and accounting.
Cornerstone Research also cosponsors Stanford Law School's
Securities Class Action Clearinghouse, the leading source of
data and analysis on the financial and economic characteristics
of securities class action litigation.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


JPMORGAN CHASE: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP filed a class action lawsuit
with the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of persons who purchased Auction Rate
Securities from JPMorgan Chase & Co. and J.P. Morgan Securities,
Inc., between March 31, 2003, and February 13, 2008, inclusive,
and who continued to hold such securities as of February 13,
2008.

The class action is brought against JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its
wholly-owned broker-dealer subsidiary, J.P. Morgan Securities,
Inc.

The Complaint alleges that JPMorgan violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceiving
investors about the investment characteristics of auction rate
securities and the auction market in which these securities
traded.

Auction rate securities are either municipal or corporate debt
securities or preferred stocks which pay interest at rates set
at periodic "auctions."  Auction rate securities generally have
long-term maturities or no maturity dates.

The Complaint alleges that, pursuant to uniform sales materials
and top-down management directives, JPMorgan offered and sold
auction rate securities to the public as highly liquid cash-
management vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money market
mutual funds.  According to the Complaint, holders of auction
rate securities sold by JPMorgan and other broker-dealers have
been unable to liquidate their positions in these securities
following the decision on February 13, 2008 of all major broker-
dealers including JPMorgan to "withdraw their support" for the
periodic auctions at which the interest rates paid on auction
rates securities are set.

The Complaint alleges that JPMorgan failed to disclose the
following material facts about the auction rate securities it
sold to the class:

     (1) the auction rate securities were not cash alternatives,
         like money market funds, but were instead, complex,
         long-term financial instruments with 30 year maturity
         dates, or longer;

     (2) the auction rate securities were only liquid at the
         time of sale because JPMorgan and other broker-dealers
         were artificially supporting and manipulating the
         auction rate market to maintain the appearance of
         liquidity and stability;

     (3) JPMorgan and other broker-dealers routinely intervened
         in auctions for their own benefit, to set rates and
         prevent all-hold auctions and failed auctions; and

     (4) JPMorgan continued to market auction rate securities as
         liquid investments after it had determined that it and
         other broker dealers were likely to withdraw their
         support for the periodic auctions and that a "freeze"
         of the market for auction rate securities would result.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 30,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq. (dcg@girardgibbs.com)
          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. (jkl@girardgibbs.com)
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. (ams@girardgibbs.com)
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone number: (866) 981-4800
          Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, filed a class action lawsuit with the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of persons who purchased auction rate securities
from Merrill Lynch & Co, Inc. between March 25, 2003, and
February 13, 2008, inclusive, and who continued to hold such
securities as of February 13, 2008, to recover damages caused by
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith, Inc. (collectively Merrill Lynch) for violation of the
federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that Merrill Lynch violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceiving
investors about the investment characteristics of auction rate
securities and the auction market in which these securities
traded.

Auction rate securities are either municipal or corporate debt
securities or preferred stocks which pay interest at rates set
at periodic "auctions."  Auction rate securities generally have
long-term maturities or no maturity dates.

The Complaint alleges that, pursuant to uniform sales materials
and top-down management directives, Merrill Lynch offered and
sold auction rate securities to the public as highly liquid
cash-management vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money
market mutual funds.  According to the Complaint, holders of
auction rate securities sold by Merrill Lynch have been unable
to liquidate their positions since the auction market for these
securities has collapsed.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 2,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
          39 Broadway, Suite 1601
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Fax: (212) 363-7171
          e-mail: info@zlk.com
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com


MICHAEL BAKER: Klafter & Olsen Files PA Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Klafter & Olsen LLP filed a class action complaint against
Michael Baker Corporation and certain of its officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of Michael
Baker between March 19, 2007, through February 22, 2008.

The Complaint charges Michael Baker certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants:

     (1) falsely reported Michael Baker's financial results for
         the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, and the first
         three quarters of fiscal 2007;

     (2) falsely stated that the Company's financial statements
         were prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles; and

     (3) falsely stated that the Company had adequate internal
         and financial controls.  As a result of the foregoing,
         the Company's financial statements were materially
         false and misleading at all relevant times.

After the close of the market on February 22, 2008, Michael
Baker announced that it would be restating its previously issued
financial statements for the first, second and third quarters of
2007, because of "errors" in those financial statements.

According to the Company, the purported errors related primarily
to the improper recognition of revenue on domestic managed
services projects in the Company's Energy business segment
during these periods.  Among other things, as a result of the
restatement, Michael Baker's previously reported net income of
$18.0 million for the first nine months of 2007 was materially
overstated by as much as $12.5 million.  The Company also
disclosed that it was still evaluating whether the false
financial reporting would impact its previously issued audited
consolidated financial statements for the year 2006.

Upon that announcement, shares of Michael Baker fell from its
close of $36.10 on February 22, 2008, to $27.57 the next day of
trading -- a drop of nearly 24% on extraordinary volume.  The
day before that announcement, Michael Baker announced Robert L.
Shaw, was retiring as Michael Baker's CEO, effective that day.

Notably, this restatement is the second restatement announced by
Michael Baker within the past three years.  On August 15, 2006,
Michael Baker had announced that a restatement involving the
Company's previously issued financial results for fiscal years
2000 through 2004, and its related financial statements for each
of the quarters of 2003 and 2004 and the first quarter of 2005,
was "behind" it -- thereby suggesting that Michael Baker had
adequate internal controls.  The recently announced restatement
casts doubt on that notion.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 12,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Klafter & Olsen LLP
          1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
          Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202/261-3553
          Web site: http://www.klafterolsen.com


MONEYGRAM INTL: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of MoneyGram International,
Inc. common stock during the period between January 24, 2007,
and January 14, 2008.

The complaint charges MoneyGram and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

MoneyGram, through its subsidiaries, provides payment services
in the United States, as well as through a network of retail
agents in North America, Latin America, western Europe, eastern
Europe, Africa, India, Asia Pacific, and the Middle East.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results related to its
investments.  As a result of defendants' false statements,
MoneyGram stock traded at artificially inflated prices during
the Class Period, trading in the $28-$30 per share range during
most of the Class Period.

On January 14, 2008, the Company announced that it had completed
a valuation of its investment portfolio and had experienced
additional net unrealized losses of $571 million as of
September 30, 2007, bringing its cumulative net unrealized
losses to $860 million.  In addition, the Company announced it
had needed to obtain amendments and waivers under its credit
agreements.  On this news, MoneyGram's stock declined to as low
as $5.66 per share before closing at $6.15 per share on January
15, 2008, on volume of 19 million shares, a one-day decline of
50%.

Later, on March 25, 2008, the Company publicly disclosed that
the SEC had launched an investigation into its financial
statements, reporting and disclosures related to its investment
portfolio.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:

     (a) the Company lacked requisite internal controls to
         ensure that the reserves for the Company's investments
         in asset-backed securities were adequate, and, as a
         result, the Company's projections and reported results
         issued during the Class Period were based upon
         defective assumptions and manipulated facts; and

     (b) the Company concealed the extent of its potential
         losses arising from its exposure to asset-backed
         securities containing uncollectible debt.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of MoneyGram common stock during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900


MORGAN STANLEY: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP filed a class action lawsuit
with the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of persons who purchased Auction Rate
Securities from Morgan Stanley and Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.,
between March 25, 2003, and February 13, 2008, inclusive, and
who continued to hold such securities as of February 13, 2008.

The Complaint alleges that Morgan Stanley violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
deceiving investors about the investment characteristics of
auction rate securities and the auction market in which these
securities traded.

Auction rate securities are either municipal or corporate debt
securities or preferred stocks which pay interest at rates set
at periodic "auctions."  Auction rate securities generally have
long-term maturities or no maturity dates.

The Complaint alleges that, pursuant to uniform sales materials
and top-down management directives, Morgan Stanley offered and
sold auction rate securities to the public as highly liquid
cash-management vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money
market mutual funds.  According to the Complaint, holders of
auction rate securities sold by Morgan Stanley and other broker-
dealers have been unable to liquidate their positions in these
securities following the decision on February 13, 2008, of all
major broker-dealers including Morgan Stanley to "withdraw their
support" for the periodic auctions at which the interest rates
paid on auction rates securities are set.

The Complaint alleges that Morgan Stanley failed to disclose the
following material facts about the auction rate securities it
sold to the class:

     (1) the auction rate securities were not cash alternatives,
         like money market funds, but were instead, complex,
         long-term financial instruments with 30 year maturity
         dates, or longer;

     (2) the auction rate securities were only liquid at the
         time of sale because Morgan Stanley and other broker-
         dealers were artificially supporting and manipulating
         the auction rate market to maintain the appearance of
         liquidity and stability;

     (3) Morgan Stanley and other broker-dealers routinely
         intervened in auctions for their own benefit, to set
         rates and prevent all-hold auctions and failed
         auctions; and

     (4) Morgan Stanley continued to market auction rate
         securities as liquid investments after it had
         determined that it and other broker dealers were likely
         to withdraw their support for the periodic auctions and
         that a "freeze" of the market for auction rate
         securities would result.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 27,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.(dcg@girardgibbs.com)
          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. (jkl@girardgibbs.com)
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. (ams@girardgibbs.com)
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone number: (866) 981-4800
          Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com


TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of TETRA Technologies
Inc. common stock during the period between January 3, 2007, and
October 16, 2007.

The complaint charges TETRA and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Company operates as an oil and gas services company
worldwide.  It manufactures integrated calcium chloride and
brominated products, and supplies feedstocks to energy and other
markets.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose the following adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (i) that the Company's Well Abandonment and Decommissioning
         (WA&D) division was not performing according to
         internal expectations;

    (ii) that the Company failed to timely take a charge for
         insurance receivables which remain uncollected; and

   (iii) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         the Company and its prospects.

On August 3, 2007, the Company announced its financial results
for the second quarter of 2007 and reduced its full year 2007
earnings guidance because of, among other things, poor profits
at its WA&D services.  Shares of TETRA stock fell 25% following
this announcement.  Then, on October 16, 2007, TETRA issued a
press release announcing that it was withdrawing its previously
estimated full year 2007 earnings guidance because of, among
other things, the Company's concern that it would have to take a
charge to earnings for substantial uncollected insurance
receivables.  In response to this announcement, the price of
TETRA common stock fell an additional $1.76 per share, or
approximately 8%, to close at $19.86 per share, on heavy trading
volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of TETRA common stock during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          e-mail: djr@csgrr.com


UBS AG: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP filed a class action lawsuit with the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all those who purchased Auction Rate
Securities from UBS AG between March 21, 2003, and February 13,
2008, inclusive, and who continued to hold such securities as of
February 13, 2008, to recover damages caused by UBS AG's
violation of the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that UBS violated the securities laws by
deceiving investors about the investment characteristics of
Auction Rate Securities and the auction market in which these
securities traded.

Auction Rate Securities are either municipal or corporate debt
securities or preferred stocks which pay interest at rates set
at periodic "auctions."  Auction Rate Securities generally have
long-term maturities or no maturity dates.

On March 28, 2008, UBS announced that it is cutting the value of
auction-rate securities in its brokerage customers' accounts,
which is a confirmation that problems with the securities have
eroded the principal holdings of investors.  Until now,
customers who were unable to sell securities in regularly
scheduled auctions were told that the securities retained full
value and would receive higher interest rates.  UBS, however,
will be using an internal model to value and mark-down
securities.  The markdowns range from a few percentage points to
more than 20 percent and as of March 31, 2008, UBS has began
marking them down.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 20,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
          39 Broadway, Suite 1601
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Fax: (212) 363-7171
          e-mail: info@zlk.com
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com


            Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
April 2, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TELECONFERENCE SERIES:
    EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION FOR ATTORNEYS - HAVING THE
      HARD CONVERSATIONS
        Mealeys Seminars
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 3-4, 2008
  MEALEY'S LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      Walt Disney World Swan and Dolphin Resort, Orlando
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 9-12, 2008
  MEALEY'S 15th Annual Insurance Insolvency & Reinsurance
    Mealeys Seminars
      The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale AZ
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 10-11, 2008
  Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
    Mass Torts Made Perfect
      Wynn, Las Vegas
        Phone: 1-800-320-2227

April 14-15, 2008
  MEALEY'S CONFERENCE: FOOD & PRODUCT RECALL BUSINESS STRATEGIES
    Mealeys Seminars
      The MGM Grand, Las Vegas
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 15, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS TELECONFERENCE: MANAGING OUTSIDE COUNSEL COSTS
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 16, 2008
  MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT &
    MOLD LITIGATION UPDATE
      Mealeys Seminars
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 16, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
    NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Gleacher Center, Chicago
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 30 - May 1, 2008
  ACI LAW FIRM GENERAL COUNSEL SUMMIT
    American Conference Institute
      New York
        Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
          Phone: 1-888-224-2480

April 30 - May 1, 2008
  WAGE & HOUR LITIGATION
    American Conference Institute
      Miami
        Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
          Phone: 1-888-224-2480

May 1-2, 2008
  SECURITIES LITIGATION: PLANNING AND STRATEGIES
    ALI-ABA
      Boston, MA
        Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 5-6, 2008
  MEALEY'S ASBESTOS TRIAL STRATEGIES CONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 7, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: CONFLICT OF INTEREST
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 8, 2008
  MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: BENZENE LITIGATION
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 8, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
    NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT (ATLANTA)
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Atlantic Station Building, Atlanta, GA
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 13-14, 2008
  D&O LIABILITY INSURANCE
    American Conference Institute
      New York
        Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
          Phone: 1-888-224-2480

May 15, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION TELECONFERENCE
    SERIES: ASSUMING A LEADERSHIP POSITION
      Mealeys Seminars
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 19-20, 2008
  MEALEY'S INSURANCE SUMMIT: CAPITAL MARKETS CONVERGENCE AND
    STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS FACING THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Westin Grand, Washington, DC
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 20-21, 2008
  MEALEY'S CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION CONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 29-30, 2008
  MASS LITIGATION
    ALI-ABA
      Charleston, SC
        Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

June 23-24, 2008
  MEALEY'S WRAP INSURANCE CONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      The Signatures at the MGM Grand, Las Vegas
        Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
          e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 25, 2008
  LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
    NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT (NEW YORK)
      Mealeys Seminars
        The Harvard Club, New York
          Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
            e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 10-11, 2008
  CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2008: PROSECUTION AND
    DEFENSE STRATEGIES
      Practising Law Institute
        New York
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

July 30, 2008
  MANAGING COMPLEX FEDERAL LITIGATION: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO NEW
    DEVELOPMENTS, PROCEDURES, & STRATEGIES
      Practising Law Institute
        Chicago
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

October 23-24, 2008
  Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
    Mass Torts Made Perfect
      Bellagio, Las Vegas
        Phone: 1-800-320-2227

* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
December 13, 2008
  MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
       e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
  
CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS  
  (2004)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
  (2005)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
  YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING
  WRITTEN DISCOVERY
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
  Big Class Action
    e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
  Big Class Action
    e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
  LawCommerce.Com/Law Education Institute
    e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
  LawCommerce.Com
    e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
  SALES AND ADVERSTISING
    American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-285-2221
        e-mail: abacle@abanet.org





                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.                         

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel Senorin, Janice Mendoza, Freya Natasha Dy, and
Peter Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2008.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *